The slow, agonizing process of removing bodies, pumping water and clearing debris from New Orleans will continue for weeks. Sadly - and predictably - the blame game is well under way, and finger-pointing is often tinged with partisan politics. Few will disagree, however, that there has been failure up and down the line - at the local, state and federal levels.

Beyond the political bickering and grizzly recovery work, there will come a time when the focus turns to rebuilding.

It's understood by many, though probably not appreciated by those in the affected area, that rebuilding the city as it was and where it was does not make sense.

The rebuilding discussion will have to be handled with sensitivity, but also with realism - reconstructing a city on former swamp land between - and below - the Mississippi River and Lake Pontchartrain suggests an attitude that Mother Nature can be controlled. And the fact that the low-lying land also sits in the path of frequent hurricanes, magnifies the risk New Orleans has always faced.

Given all these facts, expecting U.S. taxpayers to fund a conventional reconstruction effort would not be popular with voters.

Speaking on the topic a bit prematurely, or perhaps too bluntly, House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., told a suburban Chicago newspaper reporter that a lot of New Orleans "looks like it could be bulldozed" and it "makes no sense to rebuild a city that sits below sea level." Hastert's press secretary later clarified and softened the message by saying, "The speaker believes that we should have a discussion about how best to rebuild New Orleans so as to protect the citizens."

But Hastert raises issues that many other people are thinking about, given the fact that Katrina will not be the last hurricane to pound New Orleans and the Mississippi coast.

Moving the city, as the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has done with some smaller flood-prone towns along the

Mississippi River in the Midwest,

is not possible with a city the size of New Orleans.

But there have been suggestions that much of the city could be raised up ten or twenty feet on fill, or that residential buildings in particularly vulnerable areas could be rebuilt on stilts to protect them from future floods. Other observers suggest that critical commercial and governmental buildings should be rebuilt some distance out of the city center and on higher ground, leaving mostly historic, cultural and tourism sites to remain in their current locations.

The idea of raising the level of the city would replicate, albeit on a much larger scale, what Galveston, Texas did following a deadly hurricane in 1900. After that devastating storm, which killed an estimated 8,000 people and was considered the deadliest to hit the U.S. prior to Katrina, a 17-foot-high seawall was constructed. In addition, sand was dredged and brought in to the city to raise the elevation by as much as 17 feet above its pre-1900 level. More than 2,000 buildings were raised in that reconstruction process just over 100 years ago.

Likewise, along the Gulf coast of Mississippi, the satellite photographs of the devastation caused by Katrina's storm surge, suggest roads and buildings should not be reconstructed as close to the water's edge as they were prior to being washed away a week ago. Coastal marshes and wetlands should be re-established to absorb the initial impact of future storms before it reaches homes, roads and commercial buildings.

Residents of New Orleans and the Mississippi coast are still focused on survival and mourning. Thoughts of recovery and rebuilding will come later.

But when the discussion does turn to reconstruction, residents along the coast and in New Orleans must acknowledge that living below sea level and in the direct path of annual hurricanes is highly risky - and simply rebuilding what was there before Katrina does not make sense. Reconstruction efforts must reflect the folly of living in such blatant defiance of Mother Nature - even if it means some unwelcome and unpopular changes.